'The root cause was greed'

Mr Regan could have been speaking for the whole sector.

What we learned at the commission was that the financial planning industry had stolen big-time from its customers in the form of "fees for no service", which included in many cases, charging the accounts of dead people.

"Did you think yourself that taking money to which there was no entitlement raised a question for criminal law?" he asked.

Ms Smith replied that she did not.

Her boss agreed, rejecting any suggestion of dishonesty.

"Dishonesty would go to the intent and I don't feel it was dishonest in that respect," said NAB CEO, Andrew Thorburn.

The commission has a different view, indicating there could be criminal charges against both NAB and AMP.

As Mr Hayne said in his interim report, "charging for what you do not do is dishonest.

"No-one needs legal advice to tell them that.

"The root cause for what happened was greed; the greed of both licensees and advisers."

'The power is not with the consumer'

But for all the royal commission's good work putting the spotlight on fees-for-no-service, there are those who fear it will continue.

In an attempt to stop financial advisers churning their clients into new life insurance policies, where upfront commissions of up to 120 per cent of the first year's premium were on offer, those commissions are being reduced.

The first cut was this year, to a maximum of 80 per cent of premium, dropping to 60 per cent in 2020.

Only time will tell if that will stop the churning but, in a return for a lower up-front commission, advisers will be able to claim an increased ongoing, or trailing, commission of 20 per cent a year.

As independent, fee-for-service financial planner Tim Mackay from Quantum Financial told the ABC, "there is no legal obligation to provide any ongoing service.

"The adviser can provide ongoing service out of the goodness of their heart, but the power is not with the consumer."

Life insurance commissions go to the heart of all that remains wrong with the financial planning industry as 2018 draws to a close.

The industry is dominated by the manufacturers of financial products, whose aim is to use their financial advisers to sell those products.

Conflicted payments, which require a product sale — such as commissions, and so-called "asset-based fees", which are commissions by another name — remain.

"The choice between interest and duty is resolved, more often than not, in favour of self-interest," lamented Mr Hayne.

"And they are results that, on their face, deny a fundamental premise for the Future of Financial Advice Reforms: that conflicts of interest can be 'managed' by saying to advisers, 'prefer the client's interests to your own.'

The banks 'don't want them to stop pushing that product'

Yes, the banks have made a big noise about axing grandfathered commissions for their in-house financial planners, but they're not extending that ban to their external dealer networks, which also sell their products.

"They don't want them to stop pushing that product, it's as simple as that," said Suzanne Haddan, the principal of BFG Financial Services, which is another independent, fee-for-service adviser.

"They won't embrace change in the spirit of where the royal commission would want them to go."

Sensing which way the wind is blowing, three of the big four banks have announced they're getting out of wealth management (as they call it).

Westpac, as well as AMP, are staying as they are.

Will customers be better off? Not if one product-selling model is replaced with another.